?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Lakeshore
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2007-12-27 15:00
Subject: [links] Link salad afternoon update
Security: Public
Location:Nuevo Rancho Lake
Mood:busy
Music:hair dryer in the other room
Tags:books, cool, links, mainspring, publishing, tech
A reader reacts strongly to Mainspring Powell's | Amazon | Audible ]

Abduction lamp — :: wants :: (Thanks to danjite.)

Digital Movies Are More Expensive to Store Than Film — I'm not sure I believe.

The gallery of beautiful libraries

Andrew Wheeler with a different view on the fake publicist storyIt's interesting to me that folks with core industry experience, like Andrew and pnh, don't seem to see this as a big deal. ETA: I have misread pnh's earlier remarks, and misrepresented his position here. My apologies.
Post A Comment | 7 Comments | | Flag | Link






Johnny Eponymous
User: johnnyeponymous
Date: 2007-12-27 23:06 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
It's much cheaper to store digital. I've done both at the museum and it's about 1/3 the price to store something digitally. Typically, we use a RAID array (4Tb) to store 1.2TB of digital video at the cost of about 1,200, assuming replacement of one drive every month, that's another 800 or so, so you're looking at 2000 bucks for a lot more than 1 feature film.

They are right that originals are harder to maintain, but drive cost is about the only real cost unless you're dumping to multiple tapes as well, which is smart and not nearly as expensive as you'd assume.

Chris
Reply | Thread | Link



Matthew S. Rotundo: CE3K
User: matthewsrotundo
Date: 2007-12-28 02:38 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:CE3K
Here's a more in-depth discussion of the matter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/media/23steal.html?ref=media

What I wonder is how much the costs of digital storage are offset by the savings obtained from digital distribution. The article doesn't address that.
Reply | Thread | Link



Gary Emenitove
User: garyomaha
Date: 2007-12-28 04:35 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Just a teeny-weeny suggestion from the Peanut Gallery:

Does a retraction added later to an existing post work as well as a retraction posted as a separate post? Unless readers are set up to receive emails about a particular post, this wouldn't seem to target those who had already read the original and moved on.

Sorry for the interruption. Now back to the show.
Reply | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2007-12-28 05:14 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
You know, I don't know. I consider printing a lead retraction, so to speak, then decided a direct apology plus a correction was better than drawing further attention to the issue and thus compounding pnh's offense and irritation. It's up to him to decide how he feels about it.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Patrick Nielsen Hayden
User: pnh
Date: 2007-12-28 15:03 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
How Jay handled it is just fine as far as I'm concerned. I was annoyed, but hardly terminally so, nor is it the biggest deal in the world.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2007-12-28 15:08 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I don't mind so much being irritating on a point of genuine disagreement, but I hate it when I am irritating by mistake. Again, my apologies.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Keffy
User: kehrli
Date: 2007-12-28 13:49 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Somebody commented on that digital media article that it was pretty old. It looks like it's referencing a book that was written about eight years ago now - it claims that illegal downloading is not affecting movies yet because it takes too long to get them. (Oh, dial-up...)

Which I find relieving, because I was about to wonder if I HAVE just been hallucinating the 1TB external hard drives we've had on sale for $300 or $260 for the past three weeks running.

I think the computer my parents bought in 1999 had a 4GB drive that seemed ridiculously huge at the time, so I could see where drives to store digital movies would be pretty expensive back then.

Edit: I just read matthewsrotundo's comment. I'm still hesitant to believe it too, if only for the reason that there's no breakdown of where the costs come from. How much of the quoted number is hard drive cost, and how much of that is based on the current need to update the drives every few years to "keep up". I think issues with obsolescence are fixable, though.

Edited at 2007-12-28 02:27 pm (UTC)
Reply | Thread | Link



browse
my journal
links
January 2014
2012 appearances